Katie Doyle, Girl About Town

Monday, Nov. 18, 2002 - 8:01 p.m.

I have nothing really to say, which is kind of annoying, because all weekend I had plenty to say and no time to say it. Now I have all kinds of time, and.

BBV, Part I
I *do* have to say I was a little grossed out by the couple in line in front of me at Blockbuster Saturday night. The guy was a slovenly, overweight and unattractive man in his mid-40's there's no way in hell I would ever go out with, but I am clearly not dating him, so that's entirely moot. Suffice to say I did not find him even remotely attractive, on any level, and leave it at that. That's not what was gross, anyway. What was gross was that he was fawning all over the girl with him. A girl easily in her late 20's to mid-30's, who was childlike in such a way that at first I thought she was lacking in mental development. Seriously. She was leaning into him the way I've seen countless numbers of children do with their parents when said children are tired, same pouty look on her face and everything. And he was talking to her like she was about 5 years old, and she was responding as a 5 year old, so I think "Oh, she's mentally-challenged." She even had one of those little kitten voices I absofuckinglutely abhor, and it was to the Nth fucking degree. She totally, 100%, sounded like a little girl. As in a small child. As in 4 years old. So I'm thinking okay, yeah, there's something really wrong with that girl, even though she clearly has the capacity to put on make-up, because she's wearing a small ton of it, mostly dark red lipstick and so much mascara that as a sidebar I have to wonder how in hell she can open her eyes under the weight of those caked lashes. Then my skin crawls, because the guy starts touching her in a way a grown man should not touch a small child or mentally-challenged woman, and then I realize, she's not challenged, she just digs being treated and acting like a small child. So he kisses her and starts running his hand up and down her back, and she takes her hair out of the banana clip it's in and starts tossing her hair around so now it's streaming in all its strawberry bleached blondeness across her shoulders and a little down her back. And she has on those flipflops with the really thick soles, about 3" high, and they're all sparkly pink and rhinestone glory, which somehow doesn't go with the pale blue sweats stretched to the full limit of cotton-nylon blend across her very full hips, which in turn don't go any more with the tight black sweater she's stuffed into than they do with those pink spangled flipflops. Not that I am an elitist snob, but the whole ensemble just heightened the whole white trash pedaphilic grossness of the whole thing. I had to step way back and find something to talk to with the woman behind me so I could deal, because trust me, the scene in front of me was just icky. And if I were that guy's neighbors, I'd be keeping a sharp eye on my kids every time they left the house, because he must have an unhealthy interest in children to be dating a woman that freaking childlike.

And the really astounding thing is that she started talking about how she needed to "make a new tape," and that it was going to cost $1,000, though she had no answer for why it would cost that much when the man asked, and I know it doesn't cost that much to make an acting reel, which is on VHS, so I surmise she must be a singer of some sort, and I can not for the *life* of me figure out what in hell this woman could possibly sing or who would pay her to, because I'm tellin' you, with the voice this woman had, she makes Jennifer Tilly and Donna Lewis sound like freakin' baritones. But anyway. I'm done with the story, so we'll move on.

BBV, Part II
"What movies did you get at Blockbuster, Katie?" I hear you asking. Well, thanks for your interest in my home movie viewing experience. I got a French film called "Code Unknown", which only says the French title at the end, in small print, and I'm too lazy to go look it up again, so get over it. (Bygones) I also rented Kissing Jessica Stein, Insomnia, and Gaudi Afternoon.

KJStein was decent after the first 30 minutes, but those 30 minutes were pretty annoying in a hey-look-how-much-smarter-than-Ben-and-Matt-we-are, majorly pretentious way. I personally feel that if you're that damn smart, you don't have to go out of your way to prove that you are, and it annoys the hell out of me when people use 5-syllable words when those of only 2 or 3 will do. It's not that I mind people using "serendipitous" for "lucky" or quoting Nietzsche. It's that I mind them using "serendipitous" just to show they know it and bringing up a topic for the specific purpose of quoting Nietzsche. Or Rainer Maria Rilke, as this movie does. However, after they got over the need to demonstrate their incredible wit and savoir-faire, the movie was really enjoyable and said a lot about dating and finding love. It even provided a few genuine guffaws. Once it decided a guffaw was just as good as the murmur of appreciation from amused bons vivants.

I didn't get to watch Gaudi Afternoon. It looked like it might be funny, and I like Judy Davis, Lili Taylor, and Marcia Gay Hardin, but the tracking was really whacked on the DVD, and it gave us a headache, so we stopped watching it.

Code Unknown was pointless, even for a French film. I like French films. I even tend to like some pointless French films. Not, however, this one. Juliette Binoche was really good in it, though.

Haven't seen Insomnia yet.

Disclaimer
BTW, I wish to itterate this entry is not, in any way, an endorsement of or recommendation for Blockbuster Video. I actually really hate Blockbuster. Said hatred stemming from the brief time during which I was a tiny managerial cog in the giant wheel that is Blockbuster Video/Viacom/Paramount. That was the absolute worst job I have ever had, and that includes wading thru ankle-deep cowcrud in the wilds of south central Texas in the freezing winter. Blockbuster makes it a point to gouge consumers to the best of their ability, and they do it really well. However, it's the only semi-decent video store within a 6-10 mile radius of my house, and since it was dinner time and I was really hungry, I didn't feel like trekking all over hell and halfa Georgia just to rent a movie, so I went to the Hellspawn and rented. Plus I have 10 rentals I prepaid for when I got Spiderman for my brother, and if you think I'm gonna sit on 10 rentals and not use them, you're high. I got what would normally cost me $43.60 for $10. No matter how much I hate Blockbuster Video and it's vile, money-grubbing-treat-your-employees-like-crap creator, Wayne Huizenga, I'm gonna use those rentals. Take that, Wayne, you evil little gnome. And as soon as I'm done, I'll go back to renting from your biggest competitor, Hollywood Video. Mwahahahahaha!

(Besides which, HV has a better foreign and independent film section. And before you people start telling me how I need to support my tiny little independent video store next door, save it. I *like* mainstream movies, and I like them to actually be in stock when I go. So there.)

Contradictions in Church and State
So, apparently Bush's "Faith-based Initiative" is okay and does not violate the separation of church and state as set in the Constitution, but a granite sculpture depicting the 10 Commandments and placed in the rotunda of Alabama's judicial building does. Hm. The government gives millions of dollars to charities on the sole basis of their religiousness, but a state placing a piece of art depicting what can be interpreted as the origin of human law in their judicial building, yeah, that's bad. THAT fosters "excessive government entanglement with religion". But giving money to specifically religious charities does not somehow foster the same entanglements. I don't see how that sculpture is anymore a violation than having the words "In God we trust" on our money, but then, I'm not some uptight dumbass government official, either. Hey, Ashcroft: how 'bout that breast? Thank goodness you saved us from the evils of porn with that one.

Gee; maybe the government could all get together on this thing. Figure out what constitutes religion, porn, and privacy, inform all the branches of government, and then let the rest of us in on it. You know, just to avoid confusion. How long do you think it'll be until we have a 100% completely homogenized, non-secular government? Should we all go buy floor-length robes, do you think? Maybe shave little skullcaps on the back of our heads? No, wait, I forgot, it's all Southern Baptist we're migrating towards. We should all stop dancing, right NOW. Can you see Andre Serrano's Christ ever getting an exhibit in this day and age? Not that that's necessarily a bad thing... I personally won't waste any tears at the lack of that particular abomination, but I do defend Serrano's right to be a jackass. I did then, too. If I don't like it, I just don't look at it. But that there is revolutionary thinking, in some circles.

That reminds me: Why don't Baptists have sex standing up?

A: They're afraid people might think they're dancing.

What the HELL, George?
BTB? I just love that Idiotboy opposes ballistics fingerprinting on the grounds that it could possibly violate some gun owners' privacy, but he sees absofuckinglutetly nothing wrong with the wholesale invasion of the lives of every single American with "Total Information Awareness". Classic. God forbid we should be able to trace a gun used to murder someone back to its owner/user. What we really need is to know what everyone in America is reading, how they spend their money, and what they have to say in email. Asshole.

Speaking of TIA...
There now seems to be some dissention in the media over whether or not the Homeland Security Act has anything to do with DARPA's Total Information Awareness. I, myself, am inclined to believe what the NY Times has to say, though the Washington Post is generally credible, as well. In case you missed it, the NYT is all about HSA being linked to TIA. The Post says they're separate. One wonders where both papers get their information.

Now That's Legal and Fair Representation
At any rate, just in case you're lulled into thinking you've nothing to worry about, the Patriot Act is certainly off to a broad, faith-in-the-government-inducing start. See, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is a "secret" court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. It exists to rubberstamp FISA requests for surveillance, and has approved every single one of the over 10,000 requests for covert surveillance and search and seizures presented to it since its inception. You should go read. It's pretty freaking amazing, and not something you find out about until a link in a story leads you to a google search. Which is probably good, because it's a fairly frightening prospect, if you happen to distrust your government's capacity to make sound decisions regarding your personal rights. And just in case you need an example of the government's capacity to make sound decisions, I give you 1. Watergate, 2. the nuclear bomb testing in White Sands, when the government had its own soldiers sit in the sand* and watch the nuclear blast nearby, and 3. the Tuskegee Study of Syphilis in the Negro Male, 1932 - 1972, more correctly also called the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. Actually, let's make that 4: the US government's covert surveillance on and harassment of Martin Luther King which lead to the Freedom of Information Act of 1967.

So anyway, there was some question as to whether or not the wiretapping and other provisions in the Patriot Act were in violation of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. The government appealed the case to the FISC. Quelle surprise. (That's "big surprise," for those of you not pretentious enough to bandy about French.) In a secret hearing to which civil liberty attorneys were not invited, the FISC decided the Patriot Act in no way violates the 4th Amendment. Even less trust-invoking is the fact that the only attorney allowed to the hearing was Justice Department counsel Theodore Olsen, who presented both arguments...gee, where do you think he slanted? And since the Justice Department was the only party present, it is also the only party which can appeal the decision. And we all know how apt the government is to appeal decisions against itself. So the broad provisions of the Patriot Act stand, and the government can in all good conscience trample the hell out of your privacy absolutely legally and with no Congressional oversight. FISC says so.

John Ashcroft is happy with the decision. "We have no desire whatever to, in any way, erode or undermine the constitutional liberties here," he says. Except for, you know, those that involve keeping your email to yourself, your medical records private, what books you read, what you buy with your debit or charge cards...stuff like that. Guns, though. We're not going to ballistically fingerprint those. So all you gun owners can sleep at night.

Don't get me started on Ashcroft's views and record.

Googling ain't all it's cracked up to be.
*You'd be amazed how hard it is to find a thorough, factual accounting of the government's New Mexico nuclear tests on our own soldiers on the web.

BTW, have I mentioned how much I hate PDF files? I especially hate websites which are not marked as PDF files up front. FPITA.

Got your blankie and lawn chair?
Then get out there and watch those Leonids, people! It's a totally cool light show, way better than anything they've got at the planetarium. If you need Pink Floyd, take your jambox too.

God save us from unattractive websites.

What are the odds of hearing the name Massapequa twice in one night, on two different sitcoms, on two different networks? Lest you think I spend Monday night watching the horrendous lineups on any of the networks, I happened to hear a Friends rerun earlier and Everybody Likes Raymond is on now. I like both of those shows; sue me. Friends *used* to be funny. And Brad Garrett is hysterical.

My friend Katie's dad is Italian and looks enough like Ray Romano to be constantly mistaken as his brother. Katie ran into Brad Garrett at a mall last weekend, and when she told her dad, he went nuts, asking did she tell Brad her dad looks like Ray Romano, and when she said of course not, she didn't talk to him at all, he told her she "really screwed it all up". Which I guess is a lot funnier if you know Katie's dad or have ever seen the scathingly hilarious impersonation she does of him. But I was amused.

All right, that's it. When I degenerate to describing my friend Katie's impersonations of her dad, it's time to go. Cause, you know, you got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, know when to run. You never count your money when you're sittin' at the table; they'll be time enough for countin' when the dealin's done.

Moo.

Katie

ps. all you white supremecist assholes out there are the biggest bunch of ignorant dumbasses who ever walked the planet, and I will never weep for your passing. You can each and every one of you choke to death on your own bile. Kiss kiss.

0 comments so far

"Come what may? We'll all be murdered in our beds, come what may.
Besides, have you tried running in one of these things lately? It's a real bitch."

*HUGS* TOTAL! give katiedoyle more *HUGS*
Get hugs of your own

Yesterday's News - Next Stop

In which Katie shares sad news - Wednesday, Apr. 01, 2015
In which Katie returns after a very long absence - Monday, Jun. 25, 2012
In which Katie pokes her head in and brushes some of the cobwebs away - Thursday, May. 06, 2010
In which Katie asks you to write your congressman again. - Monday, Jun. 02, 2008
In which Katie asks you to please click the link and send the message to protect the rights of artists - Wednesday, May. 21, 2008